Nancy

Meeting with Susan Hildreth and staff to debrief California visits February 27, 2007

We met with Susan and four of her staff (I can get their names if necessary).

John and I summarized the results of our meetings at some length.
Focus groups produced a lot of good information.
John’s meetings showed differing points of view (no surprise) and in some cases a real need for these people to talk to each other.

Two big questions were:
What is the role of the state library?
What would they like Gates to do?

They do not see their role as providing hand’s on assistance to local libraries. They see this as a local responsibility or the responsibility of the regional cooperatives. They might do something minimal but not in depth.

Susan does see the state role as representing library interests at the state level by getting on relevant boards or commissions or attending such meetings regularly so they stay informed and can press for support or inclusion of libraries in telecom and broadband efforts. Susan has now decided to attend the Broadband Commission meetings herself.

John, what did they say they wanted Gates to do???

Meeting with Bill Huber, AT&T , San Ramon, CA

February 26, 2007
Huber is a Senior Vice President for AT&T covering California and parts of Nevada. He oversees construction and build out. This includes voice, data, customer interface, and video in the Bay area. Huber sits on the new California Broadband Commission.

He said the priorities for AT&T for 2007 and 2008 is to put voice, video and data in one platform in a copper and fiber hybrid configuration.

Huber deals mainly with getting broadband to the home. He suggested we talk to Bob Campbell who covers institutional service including libraries.

He said that they cover a large percentage of California with broadband service and can help libraries get broadband. (Several of the librarians Bolt talked to mention a new AT&T service called Optiman and Bolt asked Huber about this service. Huber said it was “too large” large and wouldn’t work for libraries. Some libraries said that AT&T couldn’t configure Optiman for their widely separated libraries.)

Huber said that libraries don’t always understand what they already have and what they have access to. AT&T would be glad to work with local libraries on this. He said that 90% of the libraries in California could have broadband today but the total solution is not in place. He said they have a working relationship with a satellite partner who might be able to provide access in more rural areas. He felt that cable was not really a viable solution.

Huber mentioned that AT&T had bought Bell-South. He said their core network would be agnostic to what was at the end of the network. It could be wireless or wire. AT&T wants to be robust and sustain leadership.

We discussed how to define broadband and he said that was an issue at the Broadband Commission. He said it is a challenge because each community has its own last mile rules and regulations. One city is easy to deal with and the next one difficult. There is also the challenge of the local right of way.

He expects the video franchise bill to equalize this. He is a big supporter of the recent video franchising bill and said it will set a new standard of franchising for everything.

He said the state right of way issues is solved and would set standard timeframes that would work.

He would like a holistic view about broadband services. He sees the biggest problem is that consumers do not know what is possible with broadband. He would like to see a public education campaign that teaches users about broadband applications. He wants government to help build demand. If a major barrier is lack of computers, he would like to see government help people get computers.

Huber sees the Broadband Commission and the new Emergency Technology Fund as complimentary.

Huber would also like to see incentives for carriers to build out. He suggested tax incentives to do this. However, he does not want government (municipalities) to establish and run their own networks. He feels this is redundant to what the telecom companies are already providing.

There will be a big Broadband Summit on May 24th. They are intrigued by the Kentucky model and have invited someone from ConnectKentucky to speak at this conference.

When asked about e-rate he said that AT&T does “a ton of e-rate and it works well.”

When asked what Gates Foundation might do he said to use their name to bring the private telecom world and communities and government together to facilitate and perpetuate development of a system that works. They need a model of who does what t make it work. Find a successful model and replicate it. Fine two or three nice applications or solutions.
Demonstrations of success
Identify requirements
Use the Gates credibility
Make it scalable
Teach government to teach private industry to put it together. Gates can be a neutral party.

California focus group, Sacramento

February 27, 2007

1. Describe your current network. How is it configured? How much bandwidth do you have? How do you get it? What does it cost? How is it funded? Is it scalable?
Individual networks and bandwidth

James: 72 libraries with T1 and Gigaman to Internet. Obtain fiber from Time Warner; T1 from city budget. This is the first year for E-rate. Can get more T1 but then need more hardware

Mary Ellen: range from T1 to small (4 computers) some 750 and 7-8 T1. System provides for all members. 4 different LATAs . Everything comes to Fresno, but mixed telcos and very expensive as a result. Doubled bandwidth in last year and filled it instantly. Erate and CTF both used. Bandwidth based on number of computers, but Internet demand changed things. 10 computers=T1. Host capacity all used up. Have to do something about the network. Members resistant to providing their own Internet.

Deborah – does not have support staff, etc. System connectivity preferred rather than county.

Mark – 11 branches with Internet to Sacramento County Office of Education, but want us off. Connection is 1.5 Mb. Branch are 256. Afternoon demand is high and under-configured. Independent network because county did not want involvement. County now wants the library back in. They are looking for a whole new way – need 6x increase. Costs $20-25,000 dollars now. Library has no choice but to go back to the county. Would have to demonstrate it is not cost-efficient.

James – trenching cost for fiber is high for initial install - in some cases, $500,000 to go. Library pays, not vendor.

What is it NOT being used for? Use is everything involved with Internet, YouTube, podcast, blogging, lots of wireless. Drive-by users. Some users have to register to use wifi, some do not. Circ a factor, as well as distance learning and looking to increase it.

3. What would you like to do with your Internet Connection that you cannot do with your current environment?

Future uses if have more bandwidth

I-2 resources not on the commodity network like Shoah

Video conferencing

For the public

For the staff

Add more public access computers

Produce multi-media productions of programs

Video story hours

Speakers

Author readings

Pod casting

Music/photos/digitized resources

Wireless bookmobile in real time

Wireless everywhere

Integrated telephone system

71 different phone companies to deal with

Telemedicine

Add more computers. Have the computers and space but don’t have the bandwidth

4. Is your bandwidth sufficient? If no, what problems does the insufficient bandwidth cause for your staff and patrons?

Slow access.

Limit access to MySpace and other social networking sites

Limits the number of computers that can be made available to the public

Can’t broadcast/podcast adult programming and speakers

Can’t offer wireless because not enough bandwidth.

5. What would you consider sufficient bandwidth? How did you arrive at that amount?
Planning
Look at what I want to do with the bandwidth. I don’t care how you get it to me, decide use; watch videoconference with no degradation; screen filled with in a fraction of a second. What is the impact on end user? If application, then you tell me.

This should not be a specific number but rather a set of preferred functionality performances such as :
Download ________KB in ______seconds.
Video conference without blips
Screen refresh in ______ seconds
Gather input on end use
Support _______ computers
Should be scalable
Formula they use is:
1 computer per 1000 people in the community
___seats for wireless users (tables, lounge chairs)

No crystal ball for library services. How do we plan that? In just a few years, we have seen a major change in library requests. The most I see is a pipe that is scalable.

One computer per thousand population and use GIS to map. Then can start to plan the pipe. All new facilities will be VoIP and wi-fi. Look at reader seats. Lounge seating and table seats are eligible in the formula. VoIP on a separate subnet.

40 computers per T1. See jump going from 1Mb to 5Mb. Wi-fi – cable franchise is using cable modems for wi-fi. 1Mb minimum. City had franchise and cable was free to library.

They use cable for wireless only. Free from cable company

Rational for getting more bandwidth
• Demand as evidenced by
o Registration
o Actual use
o Use tracked by county
o Number of computers the library has and the number waiting to use them
o Blame county if access is slow or down
• E-government
County knows how active the library Web site is as part of county web site. Make it clear that it is a county problem and not library. County has denied staff. If it fails, it is your problem.

Try to predict demand but it is growing so fast it’s very difficult

Segregate use so that administrative work is guaranteed a certain speed so that the library can operate. Staff computers guaranteed 384K - circ, ref, workroom.

Aggregate demand to convince telecom to provide servcie. Had telecom committee of big users in County. Hospital was a big user. Wrote grants. Joint use with school district; got bandwidth because of after-school activity. Schools want us to take the lead on such things

16,000 users/month for wi-fi and cable modem is fine.

Looked at cable modem for wi-fi. But 51 cities all had their own franchise deals and geography is too spread out.

Library bandwidth may taper off as entire environment changes and more is available at home.

6. If you had more bandwidth, what would you use if for? What is your vision for your library’s connectivity?
Everything they want to do.

How many computers you want to add, but it is not just the computers but functionality.

Completely wireless and check out the book wirelessly/automatically is one vision.

7. What are the barriers to getting more bandwidth?
Barriers

Priority of the library in getting build out, need to make a business case

LATA boundaries

Industry infrastructure – they change the infrastructure and don’t always think of the impact on libraries

Growth of demand

Industry targets urban area with lots of dollars where build out serves many

Hardware configuration – grows like topsy, no good planning or way to plan

Staff support at the local level. No expertise.

• Industry capability. No fiber in many places
• Cost, budget to pay for bandwidth upgrades. Erate and CTF are not enough
• High costs for remote sites
• E-rate is slow to credit
• Need for more computers and to maintain and replace them.
• Trenching cost for fiber is high for initial install - in some cases, $500,000 to go. Library pays, not vendor.
• Multiple phone companies serving an area
• Geographic isolation of the library and of the community, across the mountains. In some places in rural areas, libraries are the only access point for libraries
• Waited 3 years for T1 and fiber, and still do not have it. .
• Difficulty in convincing government that high speed internet is needed
• Providers keep targeting big urban areas, and little guys are left out of the loop. For me, nothing is available except satellite. Decision to bring DSL boils down to not enough people to make it worth their while.

8. E-rate: What role does e-rate play in high speed access for public libraries?
How does CIPA impact?
E-rate

Too much paper work

Not enough dollars

Dollars don’t come through quick enough

Not enough services covered

Contract issues – cycle doesn’t fit contracts

Filtering

BUT
“Can’t pay the telecom bill without erate”
Some libraries wanted to apply but their cities said it was too much paperwork.

Local policy says have two levels of filters; SAM product and authentication via link to circ to set up policy. Wi-fi-can’t turn off filtering.

Appeal process is difficult. Is it work the risk?

9. Who at the regional or state level provides you assistance in analyzing your needs and getting you more bandwidth?

Assistance

Board of Ed in the county

Own library staff

None

State Library

City/County IT but library may be a low priority

City doesn’t understand needs of library and library users

Regional cooperative

Telecom networks but Erate is a catch 22 because can’t talk to them before they bid

Ed tech at the university

10. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were to offer assistance in getting more of US public libraries with higher bandwidth, what would be most helpful?
Gates

Nationwide network for libraries including satellilte

Facilitate bandwidth/satellite access

Fiber optic projects, installation and ongoing costs

Expert planning assistance on bandwidth design

Bandwidth needs

Network design

Appropriate technology

Keep up to date with WebJunction

Configuration assistance

Assistance in keeping up with technology (WJ not used much)

Influence erate to simplify.

Use California TeleConnect as a model

Assist in negotiating discounts on a T-1 line

Focus on have-nots They need:

Training
Servcies

Application in the community

Space/electricity

Help with I2

Tribal libraries need assistance

Rick

JOHN WINDHAUSEN MEETING NOTES CALIFORNIA

Day #1: (Feb. 26, 2007)

Randy Chinn:

He thinks in general things are working well in California. He is proud of the state e-rate program, called the California Teleconnect Fund (CTF), which was established 5 or 6 years ago. It subsidizes ½ of the recurring network connection cost. However, this fund focuses on the “first” connection and often includes low-speed dial-up connections. The CTF law was recently amended to expand eligibility for non-profits and the subsidy can now be used for broadband.

NOTE: Rush told me after the meeting that law also was changed to require schools and libraries to apply for federal e-rate first, and the California subsidy only covers 50% of the amount not covered by the federal e-rate. This was done to save California money.

AT&T serves 60-65% of the state, Verizon about another 20%, and the remainder is served by about 20 small telcos.

He believes the state has a strong record of supporting advanced and then broadband capability. He is proud that the state has no restrictions on the ability of municipalities to build their own networks.

No new broadband initiatives are under consideration. To some extent, the legislature is awaiting results of Task Force.

ATT was interested in using Cal Trans rights-of-way, but wanted to use them for free. CalTrans wanted payment, and CLECs were willing to pay, but ATT killed the effort. ATT complained to Governor and Technet about poor rights-of-way policies, causing Technet to put California low on broadband policy report.

Randy thinks there is no evidence that lack of access to rights-of-way is a problem. Disputes Technet finding. Technet ranking is unfair.

He described Emerging Technology Fund, $60 M from AT&T and Verizon mergers, focusing on BB for underserved areas.

He believes cost is not the major factor inhibiting BB; major factor is consumers don’t have a feel for the utility of BB – no computer, no content, maintenance costs, confusion of connections: Result: consumers don’t see enough value in BB

His focus is on enhancing ability of non-profits to educate consumers of value and providing community BB centers.

He is proud that franchise bill requires telcos to provide a hook-up to a non-profit for every 10,000 subscribers.

Thinking about a master contract with cell phone providers to build towers more quickly, asking fair market value- then taking a piece of that revenue for Calif Teleconnect Fund.

2. Sandra Breier, Wes ?, Department of Telecommunications Services

Has developed 4 master service contracts for state and local gov’t telecom services to replace former single contract. Contracts just being made available now: calnet.ca.gov (or calnet2 or calren).

2/3 of customers are local governments.

Under new contracts, state departments and cities can choose terms from any of the 4 contracts, provides some competition.

AT&T won 2 of the contracts; Verizon won the other two.

Purpose of contracts is to expand BB connectivity in rural areas especially. Focus is on fixed wireless Point-to-point using Verizon’s EVDO technology and low-earth orbiting satellites. Is also trying to partner with industry to expand BB everywhere.

Not using Wi-Fi or Wi-Max.

Not just available to cities and counties; is available to energy companies, water companies, “special districts”. Libraries can connect through the local governments, or by putting an antenna on the roof and receiving EVDO connectitivy point to point.

Cable showed no interest in competing for these contracts. IBM and small telcos showed some initial interest and then bowed out. They are likely to be more successful as subcontractors to AT&T and Verizon.

Some libraries are connecting today through old contract.

Verizon and AT&T are just now building out under these contracts.

Contracts are not exclusive; state is still open to other companies submitting a better service (though AT&T and Verizon appear to have first opportunity).

Cities who sign up must have 2-year minimum. Month-to-month thereafter (like cellphone contracts). State agencies have no minimum duration. (this is an improvement over old contract, which had a 5-year commitment)

Referred to Jeannine Chandra study (ask Michael Yiang)

Old contract had no IP services (example of why it needed to be replaced).

Biggest impediment to BB is lack of south-facing angle to connect to satellite (needs to be free of trees, buildings, mountains)

Timing with E-rate is BIG problem. Notice of availability under CalNet came after deadline for E-rate filing. Schools now have to wait til next year.

No rights-of-way problems because of Governor’s Executive Order on BB that opened rights-of-way.

Sees no impediments to BB for libraries (except for lack of south-facing).

Contracts do not specify an access technology; specify only a service need – providers determine best technology.

4. Governor’s BB Task Force – Michael Liang, Ann Neville, Jeff Newman

Exec. Order creating Task Force is focused on improving BB to rural and underserved areas (same as CETF). Some disappointment that no money was included in Exec. Order creating task Force (unlike some other Exec. Orders)

Has set up 6 Working Groups, doing the heavy work of identifying problems and coming up with solutions: emerging technologies, health care, education, public-private partnerships (PPP); 2 others

Bureau of Transportation and Housing is responsible for economic development and infrastructure – that is why Task Force is housed there.

Also focused on rights-of-way issues as well as BB. Are working with municipalities as well (NOTE: CSAC said no municipality was invited to serve on Task Force)

Biggest BB problem is the mismatch between supply and demand. Rural areas have greater demand than supply; urban areas have greater supply of BB facilities but not enough appreciation or education in what BB can provide.

Government funding is not an option. State budget is too tight.

Also supports PPP as solution.

Agrees that mapping is a big problem. Doesn’t know where BB facilities are located.

Also unaware of DTS contracts. Greater focus is on consumers – everyone but public sector.

CENIC has focused on health care because of large bandwidth needs of telemedicine. Agrees that challenge is to convince CENIC to move beyond high-end research applications to serve other needs (like libraries)

Mentioned that state PUC is considering changes to state high-cost funding B (to large telcos)
High-Cost funding A goes to small telcos

5. CSAC – Counties: Jean Hurst, Geoffrey Neill, Melissa White

Represents all counties’ and almost all needs – foster care, mental heatlh, everything but eduction.

VERY disappointed with new cable franchise bill. Before statewide franchise bill, ita ctively negotiated wonderful benefits for consumers through franchise process – public access channels, wired schools and libraries, broadcast of town council meetings. All of this now impossible because of new state franchise bill

State legislation has minimal public interest requirements, and once the telco enters, the cable company can abrogate their existing franchise agreements. Disaster for cities and counties.

Cities’ only role is to hand our permits and receive customer complaints, but they have no leverage to enforce anything on the video industry.

Amazed that industry (AT&T and Verizon) spent $50 Million in lobbying for this bill.

Believes most libraries do not obtain BB through cable, so not sure cable’s abrogation of contracts will have much effect on libraries BB access.

Suggested, somewhat facetiously, that maybe libraries could install a lottery machine because lottery commission then pays for a secure BB connection.

Very concerned that BB task Force is focused on rights-of way as a barrier to deployment. Concerned that cities could lose their 5% franchise fees that remain intact even after franchise bill.

Believes that legislature is not focused enough on BB. One legislator said “BB is not even close to being as important as telephone service.”

Not aware of many municipal BB networks. Cities have more authority than counties to do this because counties need authority from state or need to share authority with city.

Skeptical of DTS contracts; believes state has not had a good record of IT management and deployment.

Noted BIG gap between growing population in Central Valley and lack of BB.

Said that there is no existing California program that would be suitable for Gates Foundation dollars. Supports creation of a new pilot project separate from existing projects, which are too politicized and captured by industry.

6. Lunch with CENIC – Jim Dolgonas and and Stephanie Couch

Biggest BB problem is dollars. New funding is necessary. Very interested in developing new content and applications that will stimulate demand for BB. Not as focused on last mile solutions.

7. Sue Buske

Her consulting firm represents public interest groups and municipalities in cable franchise negotiations.

She believes California franchise bill left intact some controls by cities, some cities are expected to challenge the new law by continuing to seek build-out requirements on telcos. Certain to end up in litigation.

Formerly headed up Alliance for Community Media in D.C., which promotes community video programming on cable systems.

Very involved in negotiating institutional networks for city governments. She is certain that almost every cable I-net would include service libraries. Often cable companies will build dark fiber for use by libraries and other municipal entities. – no limit to BB speed, whatever the library can pump through the dark fiber is up to them. (!)

Also, she believes many cable companies will prefer to retain their contracts with the cities rather than deal with state PUC. Cable companies have already built-out to satisfy municipal requirements and have installed I-networks. Concerned that state PUC may impose new additional requirements. Cable unlikely to pull the plug on their existing services.

Has been able to negotiated BB connections through cable agreements with creative interpretation of Title VI of Cable Act. Technically, Cable act only allows cities to negotiate for cable services, but Act also allows for “functionality” – this is the legal hook to request I-nets.

Praises Fred Kohn (?) city manager of Monterey County for developing BB connectivity and using Wi-Fi- to extend scope of I-net (dark fiber).

Believes AT&T and Verizon will not be interested in serving everybody as does cable.

Cable is focused on the last mile and has done much more to solve the “digital divide” than telcos. Most other state government agencies are not focused enough on the last mile bottleneck. Cable IS represented on Governor’s Task Force (CCTA).

8. Follow-up Q&A

From: ?
Geoff and I needed a bit of time to discuss this. We're frankly hard-pressed to come up with an "action" that has been particularly notable. I think at this point the most important thing is the establishment of administrative bodies (California Emerging Technology Fund and the Governor's Broadband Task Force) to research and propose recommendations to the Legislature and the CPUC. At least the conversation is getting a bit more serious...